60 réponses à ce sujet

[Finnian Valko]

billy the squid wrote...

Gender is largely irrelevant, it serves little purpose other than to delinaite and restrict the options available it does not create a deeper characterisation at all other than, you can't romance this character. In terms of practicality the key is verisimilitude rather than realism, for who would fling themselves at the main character regardles of gender, actions, appearance or in some cases species?

What is required is a more nuanced and deeper conversational system, not pick the pretty picture/ colour and win the prize. I found this paticularly cack handed in Da2 from what I can remember, but the problems are still present in DAO, ME1, ME2.

For instance DAO seemed to have some more detailed and interesting conversations with the companions which could lead to loss of approval and eventually leave, however, it is open to manipulation using the gift system, which renders the issue of a follower becoming disgruntled with you moot and you can still initiate the romance. DA2 did away with it but engaged an overtly clunky system whereby I could act like a complete arse, but they would still be available to romance by virtue of the system.

ME showed similar problem hallmarks and had the same problems, but the execution of the dialogue and romances seemed somewhat better.

Idealy a much more deeper detailed system of dialogues and cross branching avenues to engage in a romance is required. In essence make the player work for it. With regards to nuanced responses which affect approval or loyalty, a requirement would be more responses, not only renegade or paragon etc. For instance using renegade options should not mean that I have to respond like an arse, but rather resistance or defiance to a position may entail respect without closing down the romance, but without the abrasive irritation of the renegade use.

...Wow, I must say that summed everything up perfectly! I don't actually have anything else to add to that. Thank you for sharing your point of view.

[Finnian Valko]

jlb524 wrote...

Which tells me that you were quite happy with the way DA:O did things.

Then you say this about DA2...


Even if you now admit issues with DA:O, it seems at first they weren't that big of a concern to you.

Again, in terms sexuality I thought DA:O did a better job, plus I thought the conversation system in DA:O offered less "push this button to flirt" options. I was happier with DA:O, yes, but it wasn't perfect. I was only referring to it relative to the topic at hand.

jlb524 wrote...
Yes, this specific topic has been debated to death...don't you think your cause would be better served if you brought up how these romances (including the ones in DA:O for fairness) drop the ball in other areas (race, morality, class, etc)?  Thus, it would stand out from the hundreds of 'waaa waaa, bisexuals' threads that have been created in the past year.

Yes, yes you're right. Perhaps I was being a bit short-sighted when I started this topic. I apologize if I unintentionally offended and/or infuriated you.

I've changed the topic title, and left a note on my first post detailing the change.

[jlb524]

Alright, thanks

RE: new topic

I think tweaking/improving the conversation system in general is fine but I still don't see the benefit of limiting romances by gender/race/class/etc.  If they want to put the time into making things like this matter, I'd rather they do it outside of romantic dialog where it would actually matter more and be more interesting.

For example, blood mage Hawke in DA2 goes ignored (same with DA:O actually), more elf stuff if you play an elf, etc.

Modifié par jlb524, 22 décembre 2011 - 10:32 .

[Finnian Valko]

jlb524 wrote...

Alright, thanks

RE: new topic

I think tweaking/improving the conversation system in general is fine but I still don't see the benefit of limiting romances by gender/race/class/etc.  If they want to put the time into making things like this matter, I'd rather they do it outside of romantic dialog where it would actually matter more and be more interesting.

For example, blood mage Hawke in DA2 goes ignored (same with DA:O actually), more elf stuff if you play an elf, etc.

The limitation idea is more to allow for more convincing character interaction. Example: Fenris doesn't like mages. In sense, he should not be okay with getting involved with Hawke if Hawke is an apostate. Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe you can still romance him if you are a mage. This defies a key trait that makes Fenris, well, Fenris.

The benefit is that you end up with more interesting characters over all. If every character has no standards or boundaries, they risk becoming uninteresting especially in terms of romance. The problem with implementing something like this is that then you have to wonder "well, what if someone makes an ugly character?" Then they would have to program some sort of "attractivness" scale and apply it to your character based on the traits you give them, and probably give each romance option a seperate standard level since beauty is in the eye of the beholder and...wow, this sounds like a technical nightmare. 

Anyway, I don't think outright restricting things is a good idea, but applying standards based on what kind of character they're working with could really help overall.

[jlb524]

You can romance him as a mage.

You don't have to if you don't think it fits.

But if someone is of the opinion that it would fit (or thinks that it makes for a great romance story...the "I hate you because you're a mage but I love you anyway" thing) then they are free to choose that romance.

[Finnian Valko]

jlb524 wrote...

You can romance him as a mage.

You don't have to if you don't think it fits.

But if someone is of the opinion that it would fit (or thinks that it makes for a great romance story...the "I hate you because you're a mage but I love you anyway" thing) then they are free to choose that romance.

A good point. I guess Bioware's idea is to make the narrative as flexible as possible so that players can essentially write their own epic. In that regard, I see how the lack of restrictions works better.

But the conversations are still a bother. It makes romancing almost seem trivial when there's a giant heart icon that essentially says "push here to have sex with this character." Kind of makes it more pointless than it should be.

DA:O's standard list system may have been basic but at least it gave the player the benefit of not being tied down to only three tone options and one flirt option.  It allowed for better, you know, role-playing.

[jlb524]

Finnian Valko wrote...
But the conversations are still a bother. It makes romancing almost seem trivial when there's a giant heart icon that essentially says "push here to have sex with this character." Kind of makes it more pointless than it should be.

Some like that because the PC's intent is obviously "I want to romance you" and it prevents ninjamancing (which was an issue for some in DA:O).  I'm not actually sure that's why they did that...the 'heart' thing for romance is probably a byproduct of having dialog icons in general.

Finnian Valko wrote... 
DA:O's standard list system may have been basic but at least it gave the player the benefit of not being tied down to only three tone options and one flirt option.  It allowed for better, you know, role-playing.

It kind of felt the same to me...the only difference is that it wasn't on a wheel and there weren't icons.

I was still limited by what options they put in the list of responses...most of the time, the option that activated a romance was obvious...but not always (I was ninjamanced by Alistair the last time I played for saying he was a good friend or somesuch...then Leliana flipped out on my Warden...oh that was fun.).

I don't think this is such a big deal myself as I can reload the game and redo the conversation...avoiding the dialog that 'ninjamanced' me....I do save a lot.  Some prefer to know what dialog will lead to romance, though, so it can be avoided.

I found the Alistair/Leliana situation humorous but I understand others would be annoyed with the whole thing.

Modifié par jlb524, 22 décembre 2011 - 11:14 .

[AngryFrozenWater]

The "issue of bisexuality". That sounds bad. Must be horrible to be bisexual.

I think all this talk about whether or not some characters or all characters should or shouldn't have a different orientation than me puzzles me a bit. I will not be offended by an in-game shopkeeper if he or she doesn't sell what I want. If he or she doesn't sell me what I need then I leave the store and find another. If I visit a market and someone offers me apples and I don't want them then I decline. Buying that stuff is optional. That's handy. Especially if you don't need apples. Ghehe. I view in-game romances just the same. So if Zevran appears to be interested in me then I have to decline. Unfortunately for Zevran I am not attracted to him. I wouldn't be bothered if someone who was straight earlier turns out to be gay later on. After all, the romance is optional and I can decline. The game continues and that was the end of it.

If the game includes romances then it needs to have some kind of dialogue to make those happen. Some of those dialogues are written better than others. Even BW authors make booboos. No harm done.

Just like real people the in-game characters could be emotionally hurt or get a boost. If declining results in a friendship penalty then the game also offers ways to increase that score. It's all in the game.

You know what bothers me more? Merill seems to be more interested in Sandal after a successful relation. She can't stop babbling about him. Not very romantic either. I don't mind a silly repeating line, but it would be great if I could kiss her goodnight instead. I think I rather hear Leliana's "I thought you'd never ask."

[TEWR]

Finnian Valko wrote...


The limitation idea is more to allow for more convincing character interaction. Example: Fenris doesn't like mages. In sense, he should not be okay with getting involved with Hawke if Hawke is an apostate. Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe you can still romance him if you are a mage. This defies a key trait that makes Fenris, well, Fenris.

I think it's more accurate to say that Fenris doesn't trust mages immediately until they prove themselves to be worthy of trust. He says that while Hawke may be a mage like Danarius, he will wait and see if he's anything like Danarius.

He hates magic definitely, but that's not the same thing as hating mages. So it actually makes perfect sense for a Mage Hawke to be able to romance Fenris.

[The Hierophant]

Not enough nudity in the romance scenes

[Jedi Master of Orion]

To be perfectly honest, I kind of agree with the sentiment in the OP and thought it made the love interests less like characters in their own right and more like customizable extensions of Hawke. But I've long since felt complaining was pointless. It isn't really a huge deal anyway. There are actually a lot of things about portrayal of the returning characters that bothered me, and Anders apparent "newfound" sexual orientation is a relatively minor part of that. All three had very different voices and appearances but Isabella was the only one I felt very happy with.

[Finnian Valko]

The Ethereal Writer Redux wrote...

Finnian Valko wrote...


The limitation idea is more to allow for more convincing character interaction. Example: Fenris doesn't like mages. In sense, he should not be okay with getting involved with Hawke if Hawke is an apostate. Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe you can still romance him if you are a mage. This defies a key trait that makes Fenris, well, Fenris.

I think it's more accurate to say that Fenris doesn't trust mages immediately until they prove themselves to be worthy of trust. He says that while Hawke may be a mage like Danarius, he will wait and see if he's anything like Danarius.

He hates magic definitely, but that's not the same thing as hating mages. So it actually makes perfect sense for a Mage Hawke to be able to romance Fenris.

It was just an example. My point is that I think adding certain barriers, perhaps not perminent ones, could help make the romances more worth it over all. Right now it's a matter of "just say the thing with the heart label and they'll like you", which almost makes the whole process seem pointless. At least in DA:O you had to actually talk with a person to get them to like you, and make the right decisions in the game. It is true that it still boiled to saying all the right things (and gift giving, there's probably a lot of that), but at least the "romance this person" option wasn't blatantly labeled.

jlb524 wrote...

It kind of felt the same to me...the only difference is that it wasn't on a wheel and there weren't icons.

I
was still limited by what options they put in the list of
responses...most of the time, the option that activated a romance was
obvious...but not always (I was ninjamanced by Alistair the last time I
played for saying he was a good friend or somesuch...then Leliana
flipped out on my Warden...oh that was fun.).

I don't think this
is such a big deal myself as I can reload the game and redo the
conversation...avoiding the dialog that 'ninjamanced' me....I do save a
lot.  Some prefer to know what dialog will lead to romance, though, so
it can be avoided.

I found the Alistair/Leliana situation humorous but I understand others would be annoyed with the whole thing.

I thought the conversation options were more numorous at least. Sure, sometimes you had two options, but other times you had upwards of seven. Plus, you weren't tied down to a specific voice so you could imagine your characters tone when they spoke.

Funny story, I actually ninjamanced Liliana once by mistake. Morrigan got a tad...grumpy, but it made for an interesting conversation at least.

Modifié par Finnian Valko, 23 décembre 2011 - 03:23 .

[bleetman]

Romances in Bioware games going back at least as far as KotOR1 have always been 'click this option and the romance interest will like you, don't click this option and they won't'. Functionally, they've never changed. The only difference DA2 made was making the fact this was going to happen obvious in advance. It changed absolutely nothing about how the whole thing actually worked.

[Apathy1989]

I have to say at first I thought the same as the OP, but thinking about it I have to say this.

We, in modern society, put alot of our identity in our sexuality. For some reason we are obsessed by it. In Thedas, on the otherhand, it seems no one really cares. Therefore characters are free to develop in any way, ignoring sexuality as a factor.

I mean even in DAO, only reason I could see Morrigan MUST romance male is because she wants him for the dark ritual. And the only reason I can see Alistair MUST romance female, is possibility of a queen warden. But its all rather limiting, and there are plenty of reasons why both genders should be able to romance both.

I did find it hilarious that anyone would romance a dwarf though. I mean elves look pathetic enough, but a dwarf?


My opinion is though that there needs to be more ways to instantly fail a romance. Anders can have it by fighting him in the fade, but otherwise you can be as much of a ****** as you want and everyone will just have angry sex with you. There should be a line around every character where they will not touch you.

Except maybe Isabela. I don't think she would say no to much.

[jlb524]

Finnian Valko wrote...
I thought the conversation options were more numorous at least. Sure, sometimes you had two options, but other times you had upwards of seven. Plus, you weren't tied down to a specific voice so you could imagine your characters tone when they spoke.

To me, the only big change is the tone (and that's a result of the voiced protagonist thing).

In DA:O, it seemed I had a few more options, but the majority of them resulted in the same reaction from the NPC anyway.  Even if I imagined a tone it wasn't guaranteed that the NPC would react properly to it.  In DA2, you are limited to only three tones but they do a decent job of having NPCs react differently to them.  I don't want them to scrap the system (I'm pretty sure that devs have said they won't) but perhaps offer more tones or variety within each tone?

Finnian Valko wrote... 
Funny story, I actually ninjamanced Liliana once by mistake. Morrigan got a tad...grumpy, but it made for an interesting conversation at least.

Yeah, that's happened to me too.

Actually, Leliana ninjamanced me first when doing a Morrigan romance pt....then Alistair ninjamanced me when romancing Leliana in a later pt...I guess Alistair got some payback for Morrigan.

[Finnian Valko]

jlb524 wrote...

Finnian Valko wrote...
I thought the conversation options were more numorous at least. Sure, sometimes you had two options, but other times you had upwards of seven. Plus, you weren't tied down to a specific voice so you could imagine your characters tone when they spoke.

To me, the only big change is the tone (and that's a result of the voiced protagonist thing).

In DA:O, it seemed I had a few more options, but the majority of them resulted in the same reaction from the NPC anyway.  Even if I imagined a tone it wasn't guaranteed that the NPC would react properly to it.  In DA2, you are limited to only three tones but they do a decent job of having NPCs react differently to them.  I don't want them to scrap the system (I'm pretty sure that devs have said they won't) but perhaps offer more tones or variety within each tone?

More tones would definitely help, but we'd still be limited by a single voice actor. I know voice acting is expensive, but I was thinking that perhaps what they could do is do something similar to what was done in Saints Row 3. In that game you can create your own character too, but in addition you can also select three different voices for that character to have. That's three for each gender for a total of six voices.

If Bioware implemented something like that into Dragon Age 3, it would really help improve the role-playing aspect, even if they still limited things to just three tones per voice (after all, how many tones can they really have?). Again, I know that would be a bit pricey, but hey it's something.

[PrinceLionheart]

My issue with Anders wasn't so much that he hit on me (Zev was actually one of my favorite teammates in DAO), it's that there was no way to turn him down without getting rivalry points.

Of course later, I was going to make Anders a rival, but I don't like being forced to be an ass.

[Ianamus]

I don't really mind that the romance options in DA2 were all bisexual, I just didn't really like them in general, especially compared to the ones in Origins. I think that one of the main problems was lack of dialogue. In Origins you could have really long, flowing conversations with your companions in camp where you could talk about the Darkspawn, their past, and even have Leliana tell you bard stories. You could spend a quarter of an hour or even longer just talking to them.

In Dragon Age 2 the conversations were much shorter, and you were given very limited options in how to reply to them. They were also very linear. None lasted more than three minutes, and you could only have them when the plot allowed you to. Varric was a storyteller, but he never once told me a story, and the only way I could learn about my companions pasts were reading vague statements about them in the codex. You couldn't get romantically involved with people at your own pace, only when the plot allowed you to advance the relationship.

That was my problem with the romances. The dialogues were too short and linear. While I like voiced protagonists overall I can't help but wonder whether or not they are the cause. The dialogue whell certainly is a problem, with only three options most of the time, while Origins could have around six. 

Modifié par EJ107, 25 décembre 2011 - 10:16 .

[CuriousArtemis]

Ugh, the whole "making everyone bi is stupid" argument is so annoying. It's basically just the OP's opinion. Know what's annoying? Not getting to hit on Alistair because I'm playing a guy. Well dang it, I'm gonna start a whole thread about how annoying that is! *rolls eyes*

[Finnian Valko]

EJ107 wrote...

I don't really mind that the romance options in DA2 were all bisexual, I just didn't really like them in general, especially compared to the ones in Origins. I think that one of the main problems was lack of dialogue. In Origins you could have really long, flowing conversations with your companions in camp where you could talk about the Darkspawn, their past, and even have Leliana tell you bard stories. You could spend a quarter of an hour or even longer just talking to them.

In Dragon Age 2 the conversations were much shorter, and you were given very limited options in how to reply to them. They were also very linear. None lasted more than three minutes, and you could only have them when the plot allowed you to. Varric was a storyteller, but he never once told me a story, and the only way I could learn about my companions pasts were reading vague statements about them in the codex. You couldn't get romantically involved with people at your own pace, only when the plot allowed you to advance the relationship.

That was my problem with the romances. The dialogues were too short and linear. While I like voiced protagonists overall I can't help but wonder whether or not they are the cause. The dialogue whell certainly is a problem, with only three options most of the time, while Origins could have around six. 

I agree completely. That was actually one huge thing that disappointed me about DA2. I loved having the option to have long conversations with my companions at camp in DA: O, and heck you could even talk to them in the field if you wanted to. In DA2, as you say, we're restricted as far as when and where we can talk to our companions and even when we can the conversations are rather short.

I felt it was part of their epic plan to inject Mass Effect into everything. Unfortunately the long conversations were one thing that made DA: O distinct from ME. DA2 just doesn't have that.

[Gotholhorakh]

I felt it wouldn't have bothered anyone at all (regardless of why) if some of the romanceable characters had been a bit less... forward.

Modifié par Gotholhorakh, 27 décembre 2011 - 12:56 .

[CuriousArtemis]

Gotholhorakh wrote...

I felt it wouldn't have bothered anyone at all (regardless of why) if some of the romanceable characters had been a bit less... forward.

Yeah but you can ignore them if you want.  I assume you're talking about Isabela and Anders because Merrill and Fenris are prudes in comparison xD  Isabela you can just never flirt back with and Anders, even though you take a hit when you reject him, it's pretty easy to recover from.  It's akin to taking Fenris out on just one pro-mage mission.  It's pretty easy to recover from 10-15 or so rival points if you're going for friendship.

Now anyone else complaining about Anders hitting on them is just homophobic, so who cares about them, really. 

[FaWa]

The Hierophant wrote...

Not enough nudity in the romance scenes

THIS. 


Also I feel as if DAO romances had boatloads more substance that DA2. For example, Merril and my ManHawke had extremely few CONVERSATION options. Let alone romance opportunities. Seemed like a waste of potential. 

Modifié par FaWa, 27 décembre 2011 - 11:58 .

[jlb524]

motomotogirl wrote...

Ugh, the whole "making everyone bi is stupid" argument is so annoying. It's basically just the OP's opinion. Know what's annoying? Not getting to hit on Alistair because I'm playing a guy. Well dang it, I'm gonna start a whole thread about how annoying that is! *rolls eyes*

Hmmm...now that I think about it...it seems there were less threads complaining about that (not being able to romance Alistair with a guy or Morrigan with a gal) than ones complaining about the 'all bi' thing.

Interesting.

[CuriousArtemis]

jlb524 wrote...

motomotogirl wrote...

Ugh, the whole "making everyone bi is stupid" argument is so annoying. It's basically just the OP's opinion. Know what's annoying? Not getting to hit on Alistair because I'm playing a guy. Well dang it, I'm gonna start a whole thread about how annoying that is! *rolls eyes*

Hmmm...now that I think about it...it seems there were less threads complaining about that (not being able to romance Alistair with a guy or Morrigan with a gal) than ones complaining about the 'all bi' thing.

Interesting.

At least it's more of a legitimate complaint.  Imagine if there were a LI who was only romanceable by a same-sex PC!  That would annoy everyone who wanted to het romance him/her.  And it would be a totally legit thing to be pissed about on their part, too.